plasticity_delete_faces

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral consequence ('leaving the remaining native shell editable'), but says nothing about the required revision guard, reversibility via undo, or permission/auth needs for this mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the action and target. It is efficiently sized, though it errs toward under-specification rather than over-verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits the meaning of the required revision parameter and the intent field, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call from this definition alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never mentions the required 'revision' concurrency token or the optional 'intent' field, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (faces) and scopes it to Solid or Sheet bodies, distinguishing it from sibling delete_edges or dissolve_faces. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or clarify when face deletion is preferred over those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative among the many delete_* and face-editing siblings. The clause about leaving the shell editable is a post-condition, not routing guidance, so the agent must infer applicability.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.